Outranking Wikipedia

[Murt@gh]

Hi all.

What are your experiences in out-ranking Wikipedia pages which have a top position in google for an uncommon niche keyword?

Ross.

[zaggernaut]

Whats the point? Why try and outrank Wikipedia?

Most people donot take Wikipedia as a competing portal.i.e. if you are there in sight and wikipedia is there they'll most likely come and check you out unless they are ONLY looking to gain knowledge.

Having said that, i have outranked Wikipedia a couple of times. If the topic is such where Wiki page keeps getting backlinks and content then its hard unless you can cope with that crazy internal linking and quality backlinks that they get. Tough but doable. Most importantly a great lesson in SEO.

[paulgl]

Wikipedia does not rank high on backlinks. They rank high due to
an authoritative love by google. Many wikipedia pages have zero PR,
but still rank high due to being spot-on and authority driven.

You cannot outrank wikipedia for things that google will always choose
wkipedia for. (Except in rare cases) Wikipedia shines for celebrities,
places, historical people, history items, facts, definitions, etc.

They rank poorly or not at all for most stuff that you or I are going for.

They are not going to rank for car insurance, student loans, etc.

So when you ask how to outrank wikipedia, what exactly are you trying
to outrank them for? They are normally not going to budge from the #1
or #2 spot for items cemented in google-love concrete.

Paul

[frankfihn]

Originally Posted by Murt@gh

Hi all.

What are your experiences in out-ranking Wikipedia?

Regards,
Ross.

It depends on how you want to go about but there are ways. For one thing, Wikipedia's strength comes from internal linking and not very much external links. Most of their links come from other Wikipedia pages. One way is to find all their internal links and remove the non-relevant ones. For example, you'll find a celebrity article linking to "car insurance". It doesn't make sense so try and remove it (it's subject to a review) on the grounds of non-relevant. Of course, you'll want to make other edits on your account that are positive or you'll get ignored.

I'm surprised Wikipedia wasn't hit harder with the latest Google algorithm update because to me personally, it's such a junky site.

Perhaps you don't want to do that. Of course, you can always just build more and more quality relevant backlinks until you pass them. Either way, they're not invincible.

[Murt@gh]

Originally Posted by zaggernaut

Whats the point? Why try and outrank Wikipedia?

Most people donot take Wikipedia as a competing portal.i.e. if you are there in sight and wikipedia is there they'll most likely come and check you out unless they are ONLY looking to gain knowledge.

Having said that, i have outranked Wikipedia a couple of times. If the topic is such where Wiki page keeps getting backlinks and content then its hard unless you can cope with that crazy internal linking and quality backlinks that they get. Tough but doable. Most importantly a great lesson in SEO.

I think you misunderstood my intentions zaggernaut. I was simply asking about it, as the keywords I have ranked for before, didn't involve wikipedia on the first page, so you could possibly come to the conclusion that I have been looking at keywords that involve ranking above wikiepedia to get a good spot

But you make a good point about the internal links yes, thanks for your input zaggernaut.

[paulgl]

Just because you see no results from wikipedia does not mean you
rank above them. It means wikipedia is not a site for that info.

What you are asking makes no logical sense.

Using that logic, almost anything you can think of to search for
will have no results from yahoo, wikipedia, amazon, etc. And you
certainly would not go around saying yippee, I outrank wikipedia,
yahoo, and amazon.

Paul

[Murt@gh]

Originally Posted by paulgl

Just because you see no results from wikipedia does not mean you
rank above them. It means wikipedia is not a site for that info.

What you are asking makes no logical sense.

Using that logic, almost anything you can think of to search for
will have no results from yahoo, wikipedia, amazon, etc. And you
certainly would not go around saying yippee, I outrank wikipedia,
yahoo, and amazon.

Paul

Read the first post. I think you misunderstood me greatly.

Where did I say I see no results from Wikipedia? lol.

[yukon]

The easiest way to out rank a wiki page in the SERPs is to start from the inside out.

Example, post backlinks on wikipedia to the exact page that your trying to rank + your exact keyword as the wiki backlink anchor-text.

Don't link back to wiki, make it one way to your external site/page.

Just know this, If you don't know your way around wikipedia they will remove everything you edit/post.

The way I start a new wiki account is I actually jump in & provide help to what wiki needs & is looking for. Example, I think I posted/edited something like 18 wiki edits that were all approved long before I ever posted my first external backlink with anchor-text.

I've been planning on (I keep saying this lol ) to create a new pdf on how I work with wiki & get awesome backlinks that have never been rejected. It will happen, I just have to make time to do it.

[IcedSEO-CEO]

Originally Posted by yukon

The easiest way to out rank a wiki page in the SERPs is to start from the inside out.

Example, post backlinks on wikipedia to the exact page that your trying to rank + your exact keyword as the wiki backlink anchor-text.

Don't link back to wiki, make it one way to your external site/page.

Yukon, I think that should do the trick, like a kind of wikipedia also recommends you for that information too... lol

[paulgl]

Originally Posted by Murt@gh

Read the first post. I think you misunderstood me greatly.

Where did I say I see no results from Wikipedia? lol.

LOL!!!!
What's this?

I think you misunderstood my intentions zaggernaut. I was simply asking about it, as the keywords I have ranked for before, didn't involve wikipedia on the first page, so you could possibly come to the conclusion that I have been looking at keywords that involve ranking above wikiepedia to get a good spot

Getting "lost in translation" seems to be the norm today on WF.

So I'll repeat:

Using that logic, almost anything you can think of to search for
will have no results from yahoo, wikipedia, amazon, etc. And you
certainly would not go around saying yippee, I outrank wikipedia,
yahoo, and amazon.

Paul

[penpal6]

Build high PR links.....build .edu links and ping them to index faster!

[jacked]

I have one site which competes with and outranked wikipedia with an EMD, but I wouldn't try doing it without an EMD.

[lexilexi]

Correction - Wikipedia DOES rank high on backlinks - do some SERP mining and you can see this easily. They receive a huge number of in-content anchor text keyword links from relevant pages, as it has become an unconscious habit for writers to link wikipedia in their articles... exactly the kind of links Google loves. Plus they have a high domain authority and strong interlinking within wikipedia.

Of course you want to outrank them. It means more traffic, and enhanced status in the eyes of the visitor - "this site must be more important" is what they may be thinking.

Wikipedia traffic is *not* completely separate from "buyer" traffic: A lot of people go to Wiki to learn more about items they are considering purchasing!

As others have said, anyone who does even a modest amount of SEO is going to run into the problem of outranking wikipedia all the time. It is an SEO goal obviously worth achieving. There are plenty of keywords that have monetization potential that rank high in wikipedia. example: "diamond". This is a super tough keyword, but wiki has been beaten by a couple of sites.

Owing to the difficulty of obtaining this many 'high quality' links, looks as though they are out-muscling Wiki by sheer link volume.

Another classic example for your studies - "mortgage". Note that the site outranking wikipedia does not have the keyword in the domain.

It's difficult, but do-able if you have the time, skills, budget etc.

Oh yeah, and outgoing Wikipedia links are no-follow... plus they usually get pruned unless super relevant.

[dcristo]

Originally Posted by lexilexi

There are plenty of keywords that have monetization potential that rank high in wikipedia. example: "diamond". This is a super tough keyword, but wiki has been beaten by a couple of sites.

At the time of this post I see Wikipedia ranking #1 with sitelinks to boot. It seems it was given favorable treatment since the panda update.